A phytochemical study of hydrastis Canadensis (goldenseal)


Gillis, E.; Langenhan, H.A.

Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences 20(3): 210-224

1931


210
JOURNAL
OF
THE
Vol.
XX,
No.
3
A
PHYTOCHEMICAL
STUDY
OF
HYDRASTIS
CANADENSIS
(GOLDENSEAL).*
BY
EDWIN
GILLIS**
AND
H.
A.
LANGENHAN.***
INTRODUCTION.
The
experimental
work
presented
here
is
a
continuation
of
the
investigation
begun
in
1927,
a
report
of
which
was
presented
before
the
Scientific
Section
of
the
AMERICAN
PHARMACEUTICAL
ASSOCIATION
at
Portland,
Maine,
August,
1928,
under
the
title
"A
Pharmaceutical
Study
of
Hydrastis
Canadensis,"'
by
Ruby
H.
Hirose
and
H.
A.
Langenhan.
The
experimental
work
included
in
the
above
study
covered
a
period
of
one
year.
It
presented
information
of
value,
yet
not
sufficiently
conclusive.
It
was
therefore
deemed
desirable
to
continue
the
investigation
of
Hydrastis.
Since
1927,
seventy-seven
samples
were
obtained
from
the
Skagit
Valley
Goldenseal
Farm
and
more
than
500
assays
were
made.
For
a
more
accurate
assay
the
plant
was
divided
into
the
conventional
bo-
tanical
classification
of
rhizome,
root,
leaf
and
stem,
and
each
analyzed
separately.
This
study
attempted
to
include:
1.
A
tentative
standard
of
the
age
and
weight
relations
of
the
different
parts
of
the
plant.
2.
Relations
of
alkaloidal
variability
among
the
same
parts
with
respect
to
age,
monthly
and
seasonal
changes.
3.
Data
on
the
approximate
assays
of
non-alkaloidal
constituents,
such
as
moisture,
acid-insoluble
ash,
acid-soluble
ash
and
total
ash,
and
the
relation
be-
tween
the
percentage
of
ether-soluble
alkaloid
and
aeid-soluble
ash.
An
additional
phase
of
the
study
will
be
the
berberine
content
and
its
relation
to
the
ether-soluble
alkaloids
and
acid-soluble
ash,
as
these
three
represent
plant
constituents.
PREPARATION
OF
THE
SAMPLES.
The
underground
portion
of
Hydrastis
consists
of
a
root
stock
or
rhizome
and
roots.
The
rhizome
is
the
underground
stem,
but
it
is
often
conveniently
thought
of
as
a
part
of
the
root
system
because
it
creeps
along
the
earth
and
resembles
a
root
in
appearance.
The
half
tone
(Plate
I)
is
from
a
photograph
of
an
underground
root
system.
The
rhizome
sends
out
tendrils
which
produce
buds
as
observed
by
the
white
markings.
These
buds
form
a
rhizome
which
in
turn
sends
out
tendrils
which
even-
tually
thicken
to
form
a
matted
mass.
The
plants
were
harvested
so
as
to
remove
not
only
the
roots,
but
the
rootlets.
The
weight
percentage
ratio
of
rhizome
to
root
will
often
depend
upon
the
care
exerted
in
removing
all
the
root
fibres.
Much
of
the
adhering
soil
was
shaken
out
*
Presented
before
the
Scientific
Section,
AMERICAN
PHARMACEUTICAL
ASSOCIATION
at
Baltimore,
May
1930.
**
Holder
of
the
Skagit
Valley
Goldenseal
Farm
Fellowship
in
Medicinal
Plant
Culti-
vation.
College
of
Pharmacy,
U.
of
Washington.
***
Professor
of
Pharmacy,
College
of
Pharmacy,
U.
of
Washington.
See.
JOUR.
A.
PH.
A.,
19
(1930),
page
349.
,
I
r••
-
/
r
Plate
I.—Root
system
of
Hydrastic
(Goldenseal).
12-inch
ruler
for
comparison.
The
dried
rhizome
and
root
of
Hydrastis
Canadensis,
Ranunculaceae.
March
1931
AMERICAN
PHARMACEUTICAL
ASSOCIATION
211
and
the
remainder
washed
out
with
a
hose
or
just
under
the
water
tap.
It
was
then
dried
at
approximately
95
°
Fahrenheit
for
several
days,
or
until
the
rhizome
was
quite
crisp
and
broke
readily,
after
which
it
was
weighed,
separated
into
rhizome
and
root
and
these
portions
weighed.
These
portions
were
ground
sepa-
rately
in
a
laboratory
mill
and
stored
in
well-closed
containers.
VARIABILITY
OF
CONVENTIONAL
DIVISIONS
OF
PLANT
THE
RELATION
BETWEEN
THE
PERCENTAGE
WEIGHT
OF
ROOT
AND
RHIZOME
IN
PLANTS
OF
DIFFERENT
AGE.
For
this
particular
phase
of
the
study,
forty-seven
representative
samples
of
Hydrastis
were
harvested.
They
in-
cluded
plants
from
2
to
14
years
of
age.
The
weight
of
the
samples
varied;
from
that
grown
on
four
square
feet
of
ground,
approximating
150
to
500
Gm.,
depending
on
the
age,
to
25
pounds
of
drug.
Table
I
is
explanatory
without
dis-
cussion.
However,
to
fully
appreciate
the
significance
of
this
and
all
other
tables,
accompanying
graphs
were
made,
the
original
size
having
been
10
x
20
inches.
These
were
photo-
graphically
reduced
to
5
x
7
inches.
Otherwise,
quite
distinctive
variations
would
be
overlooked
for
want
of
magni-
fication.
The
alkaloidal
content
of
the
rhi-
zome
is
greater
than
that
of
the
root,
hence
a
greater
percentage
weight
of
rhizome
is
desirable;
although
this
is
not
always
applicable.
There
is
ap-
proximately
a
difference
of
1
per
cent
ether-soluble
extract
between
rhizome
and
root.
With
a
few
exceptions,
the
percent-
age
weights
of
rhizome
and
root
are
fairly
constant.
The
general
average
was
28.1
per
cent
rhizome
and
71.9
per
cent
root.
Several
groups
may
be
set
forth
for
consideration.
PERCENTAGE
WEIGHT
OF
RHIZOME
FROM
PLANTS
OF
DIFFERENT
AGE.
Weight
per
cent,
Age.
rhizome.
2
20.60
3
24.75
4
20.30
5
25.90
6
29.80
212
JOURNAL
OF
THE
Vol.
XX,
No.
3
The
results
represent
the
average
for
plants
of
the
same
age
in
years,
irre-
spective
of
the
date
(year)
collected.
PERCENTAGE
WEIGHT
OF
RHIZOME
COLLECTED
FROM
THE
SAME
PLOT
Two
CONSECUTIVE
YEARS.
Per
cent
weight,
Stock
no.
Age.
Year.
rhizome.
6
4
1927
16.7
30
5
1928
26.4
PERCENTAGE
WEIGHT
OF
RHIZOME
OF
PLANTS
REPRESENTING
MAXIMUM
PERCENTAGE.
Stock
no.
Age.
Month.
Year.
Per
cent
weight,
rhizome.
32
3
Sept.
1928
38.8
66
6
Sept.
1929
42
.
5
73
6
Oct.
1929
43.7
77
6
Nov.
1929
39.3
.
..:.:
..
.,.
.
.
I
eyi:
7froporila
Mira
c
k
I.
1
1
--
—1
—1--
i•••••
—,
.
_
__
_
____.....
....
__
_
._
_
_
_
i
1
--
'
--
----
--
1.--
---
._
I.
-,
I
,./
s
5
<1 -
',
:,-
-
'
dcfd.
LAA
+7.11
,'..
-
f
,t,rw
ro:
Jill
t
-t
fed
J
MN
i
I,
ab
,
/HY
.
/.
fo'IA
Plif
la
14,
ill..
4
Air
All'ill
14
illJ
I.
r
,
kr.
Fe
ittl
fill
iffj
Olt
&
Fe
PO
L
:col-
fill
Oil
F,1.
6
01-i.
let
5:14.
0'
fin
.
0
1F
fill
mill
Chart
1.—Weight
percentage
proportion
of
rhizome
to
root
for
plants
varying
in
age
from
2-14
years,
harvested
1927,
1928,
1929.
Rhizome.
Root.
Maximum
52.8
83.3
Average
28.1
71.9
Minimum
16.7
47.2
PERCENTAGE
WEIGHT
OF
RHIZOME
FROM
PLANTS
COLLECTED
FROM
THE
SAME
PLOT
FOR
THREE
CONSECUTIVE
YEARS.
Stock
no.
Age.
Month.
Year.
Per
cent
weight,
rhizome.
7
12
Sept.
1927
52.8
27
13
Sept.
1928
40.8
(3,
d)
68
14
Sept.
1929
37.2
No
definite
conclusion
may
be
reached
from
the
data
compiled
so
far.
The
high
percentage
weight
of
the
last
group
may
be
accounted
for
by
the
fact
that
it
was
impossible
to
dig
up
all
the
roots
and
rootlets
belonging
to
the
plant.
The
mass
of
rhizome
and
roots
was
about
six
inches
deep,
and
was
cut
out
of
the
solid
bed.
March
1931
AMERICAN
PHARMACEUTICAL
ASSOCIATION
213
Neither
age
nor
seasonal
effects
manifest
themselves
consistently.
Un-
doubtedly
soil
and
climate
conditions,
from
the
time
the
seed
is
planted
up
to
the
time
of
harvest,
as
well
as
hereditary
properties,
influence
the
percentage
weight.
,.
e
Lir
.1d1
......._
---VYA11.A;
_
TA
121DIAL
di
f
r
(Wel
dr
.V.W.
9
1.
6
yirli
Pip',
!,.
.
...
^
.
1
fitz•
037,-'112
74
,
....
._._.....
...-
.....
1.
._.
,.
.
1
.
V..
..
.
i
..
.1,
-
.
1
Y.
.
.....-----
----
1
.
I.
,
---
1.•
II
ir•
1
C-:4111::L..-
..........-•
_...
.....--.
1
-
4
AAX.1
Si
>d
'
...
V
..
-
'
.
.—
..
..Fill
491.
..
4
EILLT
Cl'
pa
!Its
...
........--.
..
••-•..-
Feplt
-
r'
P
,
'IA
IP
/Y7
'
V
ni
••••
0
Of
(0
lq
1
17.4
7
_
X
C
i
Ai
r
192
0
.
ccia
I
19
_
ri
-
f
--
i
'
1
—..--
Chart
2.--Weight
percentage
proportion
of
rhizome
to
root
of
six-year-old
plants
for
the
years
1927,
1928,
1929.
Rhizome.
Root.
Maximum
43.7
56.3
Average
29.8
70.2
Minimum
21.2
56.3
s
ties
1
I
''
r
I
''
t
-
4
'
rvi'..
--
1.
--
!
---
r7
-
I/.
1
hy.
r
.i6
1
.1
St
r
t
Scot.
Se
.
i.
.R.af.
1
Oil.
1
16is
114:
IS'os•?.
,...
,
),...i
.Az:_l_ius
.
t
.
..a.a._
_:s.21....
t
..:Am...
IfBd
.
.--112.51.
.IKILifil
egil
Chart
3.--The
percentage
of
ether-soluble
alkaloids
of
the
rhizome
and
root
from
plants
varying
in
age
from
2-14
years.
Rhizome.
Root
Maximum
3.38
4.29
Average
2.50
3.50
Minimum
1.86
2.50
214
JOURNAL
OF
THE
Vol.
XX,
No.
3
TABLE
I.--WEIGIIT
PERCENTAGE
PROPORTION
OF
RHIZOME
TO
ROOT
FOR
PLANTS
VARYING
IN
AGE
FROM
2-14
YEARS,
HARVESTED
1927,1928,
1929.
Stock
no.
Age.
Month.
Year.
Weight
per
cent,
rhizome.
Weight
per
cent.
root.
33
2
September
1928
20.6
79.4
1
3
September
1927
18.6
81.4
5
3
September
1927
22.3
77.7
35
3
September
1928
19.4
80.6
32
3
September
1928
38.8
61.2
6
4
September
1927
16.7
83.3
31
4
September
1928
23.9
76.1
2
5
September
1927
25.5
74.5
30
5
September
1928
26.4
73.6
53
6
February
1929
23.8
76.2
52
6
March
1929
24.3
75.7
54
6
March
1929
29.2
70.8
55
6
April
1929
24.7
75.3
56
6
May
1929
22.1
77.9
36
6
May
1928
25.3
74.7
37
6
June
1928
22.1
77.9
58
6
June
1929
25.5
74.5
60
6
July
1929
22.0
78.0
39
6
August
1928
26.0
74.0
4
6
September
1927
22.7
77.3
3
6
September
1927
31.9
68.1
22
6
September
1927
27.8
72.2
28
6
September
1928
23.8
76.2
38
6
September
1928
26.4
73.6
66
6
September
1929
42.5
57.5
67
6
September
1929
33.2
66.8
70
6
September
1929
28.7
71.3
65N
6
September
1929
28.6
71.4
65J
6
September
1929
24.1
75.9
651
6
September
1929
25.8
74.2
65A
6
September
1929
23.9
76.1
65C
6
September
1929
30.5
69.5
65G
6
September
1929
26.6
73.4
65D
6
September
1929
25.0
75.0
65L
6
September
1929
28.8
71.2
40
6
October
1928
29.6
70.4
41
6
October
1928
31.6
68.4
42
6
October
1928
21.2
78.8
72A
6
October
1929
30.6
69.4
72C
6
October
1929
29.1
70.9
73
6
October
1929
43.7
56.3
77
6
October
1929
39.5
60.5
46
6
November
1928
27.2
72.8
48
6
December
1928
20.7
79.3
7
12
September
1927
52.8
47.2
27
13
September
1928
40.8
59.2
68116
14
September
1929
37.2
62.8
Minimum
16.7
47.2
Average
28.1
71.9
Maximum
52.8
83.3
March
1931
AMERICAN
PHARMACEUTICAL
ASSOCIATION
215
WEIGHT
PERCENTAGE
PROPORTION
OF
RHIZOME
TO
ROOT
OF
SIX-YEAR-OLD
PLANTS
FOR
THE
YEARS
1927,
1928,
1929.
It
is
of
interest
to
the
grower
to
know
approximately
the
proportion
of
rhizome
to
root;
likewise,
the
average
yield
per
given
area
for
3-,
4-,
5-year-old
plants.
However,
the
producer
is
immediately
interested
to
know
whether
his
harvested
crop
is
average
or
above
average,
in
accordance
with
certain
standards.
Table
II
is
the
weight
percentage
proportion
of
rhizome
to
root
of
six-year-old
plants
harvested
during
the
years
1927,
1928
and
1929.
The
average
weight
percentage
of
rhizome
for
1927
samples
is
27.5.
The
average
weight
percentage
of
rhizome
for
1928
samples
is
28.6.
The
average
weight
percentage
of
rhizome
for
1929
samples
is
30.7.
The
composite
average
for
all
samples
for
the
three
successive
years
is
29.8.
Thus,
from
a
study
of
the
24
samples
it
may
be
assumed
that
approximately
30
per
cent
is
an
average
yield
for
the
percentage
of
rhizome.
With
the
exception
of
the
several
samplings
which
approached
a
40
per
cent
yield
of
rhizome,
the
variation
for
the
percentage
of
rhizome
from
the
line
of
aver-
ages
is
slight.
TABLE
II.-WEIGHT
PERCENTAGE
PROPORTION
OF
RHIZOME
TO
ROOT
OF
SIX-YEAR-OLD
PLANTS
FOR
THE
YEARS
1927,
1928,1929.
Stock
no.
A
g
e.
Month.
Year.
Wei
g
ht
per
cent,
rhizome.
Wei
g
ht
per
cent,
root.
4
6
September
1927
22.7
77.3
3
6
September
1927
31.9
68.1
22
6
September
1927
27.8
72.2
28
6
September
1928
23.8
66.2
32
6
September
1928
38.8
61.2
38
6
September
1928
26.4
73.6
40
6
October
1928
29.6
70.4
41
6
October
1928
31.6
68.4
42
6
October
1928
21.2
78.8
66
6
September
1929
42.5
57.5
67
6
September
1929
33.2
66.8
70
6
September
1929
28.7
71.3
65N
6
September
1929
28.6
71.4
65J
6
September
1929
24.1
75.9
651
6
September
1929
25.8
74.2
65A
6
September
1929
23.9
76.1
65C
6
September
1929
30.5
69.5
65G
6
September
1929
26.6
73.4
65D
6
September
1929
25.0
75.0
65L
6
September
1929
28.8
71.2
72A
6
October
1929
30.6
69.4
72C
6
October
1929
29.1
70.9
73
6
October
1929
43.7
56.3
77
6
October
1929
39.5
60.5
Maximum
43.7
56.3
Average
29.8
70.2
Minimum
21.2
56.3
SUMMARY.
The
weight
percentage
distribution
for
rhizome
for
all
three
years
is
as
follows:
Jae
luq
'3.411
Ji
ihttnic
.
: .
1
:
!j•••d•ai.,
p.
:
•/.
ptiati_:
n••
1_
—2(4
it
:
71
,11
f
"
;
Bar
1
216
JOURNAL
OF
THE
Vol.
XX,
No.
:3
Minimum
weight
percentage
for
rhizome
is
21.2.
Average
weight
percentage
for
rhizome
is
29.8.
Maximum
weight
percentage
for
rhizome
is
43.7.
The
distribution
for
root:
Minimum
weight
percentage
for
root
is
57.5.
Average
weight
percentage
for
root
is
70.2.
Maximum
weight
percentage
for
root
is
78.8.
Chart
4.—The
percentage
of
ether-soluble
alkaloids
of
rhizome
and
root
of
fall
harvest
plants
for
the
years
1927,
1928,
1929.
Rhizome.
Root.
Maximum
2.89
4.25
Average
2.40
3.39
Minimum
2.03
2.77
ALKALOIDAL
VARIABILITY
ASSAY.
The
United
States
Pharmacopoeia
method
of
assay
was
followed.
Ten
grams
of
the
powdered
drug
were
transferred
to
an
Erlenmeyer
flask.
To
this
were
added
100
cc.
of
ether
and
the
mixture
allowed
to
stand
five
minutes,
then
adding
10
cc.
of
a
10
per
cent
solution
of
ammonia
water.
The
containers
were
placed
in
a
mechanical
shaker,
agitated
for
two
hours
and
allowed
to
stand
over
night.
After
again
agitating
for
half
an
hour,
50
cc.
of
the
ether
solution
were
measured
into
a
separatory
funnel.
The
ether
solution
was
extracted
with
suc-
cessive
portions
of
20
cc.
of
5%
sulphuric
acid
15
cc.
of
1.5%
sulphuric
acid
10
cc.
of
1.0%
sulphuric
acid
10
cc.
of
1.0%
sulphuric
acid
Lugol's
solution
was
used
to
test
for
the
complete
removal
of
alkaloidal
salts
from
the
ether-soluble
extract.
March
1931
AMERICAN
PHARMACEUTICAL
ASSOCIATION
217
The
acid
solution
was
made
faintly
alkaline
with
stronger
ammonia
water
and
allowed
to
cool
before
shaking
out
with
ether.
The
following
proportions
of
ether
were
used
successively:
20
cc.
ether
15
cc.
ether
10
cc.
ether
10
cc.
ether
The
acid
solution
was
then
tested
with
Lugol's
solution
for
absence
of
alkaloid.
The
ether
was
allowed
to
evaporate
spontaneously
and
the
residue
then
dried
at
100
°
C.
THE
PERCENTAGE
OF
ETHER-SOLUBLE
ALKALOIDS
OF
THE
RHIZOME
AND
ROOT
FROM
PLANTS
VARYING
IN
AGE
FROM
2-14
YEARS.
Table
III
summarizes
the
ether-soluble
alkaloidal
content
of
the
root
and
rhizomes
of
plants
varying
in
age
from
2-14
years.
By
a
study
of
Chart
3
the
tendency
of
an
increase
of
alkaloidal
content
of
rhizome
followed
by
an
increase
of
alkaloidal
content
of
root
becomes
quite
ap-
parent.
Of
the
forty-six
samples
studied
in
this
group,
thirty-two
samples
com-
plied
with
this.
TABLE
III-THE
PERCENTAGE
OF
ETHER-SOLUBLE
ALKALOIDS
OF
THE
RHIZOME
AND
ROOT
FROM
PLANTS
VARYING
IN
AGE
FROM
2-14
YEARS.
Stock
no.
Age.
Month.
Year.
Root.
Rhizome.
33
2
September
1928
2.08
2.83
1
3
September
1927
2.56
3.30
5
3
September
1927
2.60
3.50
35
3
September
1928
1.86
2.93
32
3
September
1928
2.25
3.34
6
4
September
1927
2.75
3.86
31
4
September
1928
198
3.07
2
5
September
1927
2.77
3.40
30
5
September
1928
2.28
3.58
53
6
February
1929
2.54
4.21
52
6
March
1929
2.57
3.15
54
6
March
1929
2.94
4.18
55
6
April
1929
3.20
4.21
56
6
May
1929
2.88
4.29
36
6
May
1928
3.22
4.14
37
6
June
1928
2.13
2.50
58
6
June
1929
3.00
4.02
60
6
July
1929
2.53
3.73
39
6
August
1928
2.16
3.57
4
6
September
1927
2.70
4.03
3
6
September
1927
2.80
3.80
22
6
September
1927
2.50
3.10
28
6
September
1928
2.10
3.02
29
6
September
1928
2.20
3.48
38
6
September
1928
2.15
3.57
66
6
September
1929
2.16
3.20
67
6
September
1929
2.18
2.99
70
6
September
1929
2.60
3.70
65N
6
September
1929
2.21
2.77
65J
6
September
1929
2.034
3.02
218
JOURNAL
OF
THE
Vol.
XX,
No.
3
Table
III.--
Concluded.
Stock
no.
Age.
Month.
Year.
Root.
Rhizome.
651
6
September
1929
2.15
3.72
65A
6
September
1929
2.31
3.06
65C
6
September
1929
2.15
3.15
65G
6
September
1929
2.32
3.06
65D
6
September
1929
2.59
4.25
65L
6
September
1929
2.19
2.97
41
6
September
1928
2.33
3.05
42
6
September
1928
2.44
3.67
72A
6
September
1929
2.61
3.38
72C
6
September
1929
2.89
3.61
73
6
September
1929
2.88
3.63
77
6
November
1929
2.90
3.90
46
6
November
1928
3.38
3.94
48
6
December
1928
3.08
4.20
7
12
September
1927
2.90
3.29
27
13
September
1928
2.50
3.00
68DB
14
September
1929
2.06
2.65
Maximum
3.38
4.29
Average
2.50
3.50
Minimum
1
86
2.50
TABLE
IV.-THE
PERCENTAGE
OF
ETHER-SOLUBLE
ALKALOIDS
OF
RHIZOME
AND
ROOT
OF
FALL
HARVEST
PLANTS
FOR
THE
YEARS
OF
1927,1928,1929.
Stock
no.
Age.
Month.
Year.
Assay,
root.
Assay,
rhizome.
4
6
September
1927
2.70
4.03
6
6
September
1927
2.80
3.80
22
6
September
1927
2.50
3.10
28
6
September
1928
2.10
3.0?,
29
6
September
1928
2.20
3.48
38
6
September
1928
2.15
3.57
41
6
October
1928
2.33
3.05
42
6
September
1928
2.44
3.67
66
6
September
1929
2.16
3.20
67
6
September
1929
2.18
2.99
70
6
September
1929
2.60
3.70
65N
6
September
1929
2.21
2.77
65J
6
September
1929
2.03
3.02
651
6
September
1929
2.15
3.72
65A
6
September
1929
2.31
3.06
65C
6
September
1929
2.15
3.15
65G
6
September
1929
2.32
3.06
65D
6
September
1929
2.39
4.25
65L
6
September
1929
2.19
2.97
72A
6
October
1929
2.61
3.38
72C
6
October
1929
2.89
3.61
73
6
October
1929
2.88
3.63
Maximum
2.89
4.25
Average
2.40
3.39
Minimum
2.03
2.77
NOTE:
According
to
Table
III
(Chart
3)
the
average
for
the
rhizome
is
3.50%
and
for
the
root
2.50%.
This
might
indicate
that
September
is
not
a
desirable
month
for
harvesting
in
this
region.
raL_!115.4.
..
,
pf
l
/Mat
a
r
C
,
V
-
ite
i
y
:
11,151:
Sc
Ctilirope4.
Int-
r
..
..
---
---.
ipf..M.
hoti
.116.
1
ST
.
srx~Vrr
4
,
1
A
ytiir
mkt
.
.
+r-
-
.:.
-
r
,•:
-
r
I
/11111111 11
I
II
,
3
3
3
3
•.
SC,
3
rtlrib.,1
Arr
,
.
,
.
-ntair.41sau.kir4V
0
-•.•
i
14g
:
:
-
r r
1.
!
March
1931
AMERICAN
PHARMACEUTICAL
ASSOCIATION
219
Chart
5.—Monthly
assay
of
rhizome
and
root
(1928
and
1929).
Rhizome.
Root.
Maximum
4.29
3.38
Average
2.83
2.73
Minimum
3.15
2.13
These
samples
were
obtained
from
the
same
plot.
July
for
1928
and
January
and
August
for
1929
are
missing.
Chart
6.—Alkaloidal
content
of
plant
(rhizome
and
root).
Maximum
3.45%
Average
2.82%
Minimum
2.22%
220
JOURNAL
OF
THE
Vol
XX,
No
3
MONTHLY
ASSAY
OF
RHIZOME
AND
ROOT
(1928
AND
1929).
The
Skagit
Valley
Goldenseal
Farm,
Mount
Vernon,
Washington,
supplied
monthly
samples
for
this
phase
of
the
work,
beginning
May
1928,
until
November
1929.
It
was
hoped
that
some
information
could
be
obtained
from
this
range
of
sampling,
relative
to
monthly
variations.
The
alkaloidal
values
given
for
September
and
October
are
composite
values
or
the
averages
of
a
number
of
samplings.
For
September
and
October
1929
eleven
and
five
different
samplings
were
made,
respectively.
From
Chart
5
it
is
readily
observed
that
the
alkaloidal
value
for
the
rhizome
is
fairly
constant
from
November
until
June,
when
it
is
on
the
decline,
reaching
its
lowest
level
in
September.
It
increases
again
during
October
and
finally
reaches
the
same
value
in
November
1929
as
in
November
1928.
The
assay
of
the
root
during
the
same
period
is
slightly
erratic.
However,
the
curve
for
the
root
follows
the
same
general
tendency
of
the
rhizome
from
June
when
it
is
on
the
decline
until
it
reaches
its
lowest
level
in
September
and
then
it
is
on
the
incline
during
the
months
of
October
and
November.
Chart
5
includes
additional
sampling,
covering
the
period
from
May
until
November
1928.
The
assay
is
high
in
May,
declining
until
September
when
it
is
on
the
increase
in
October
and
November.
The
sampling
for
May
in
both
years
is
high.
TABLE
V.-MONTHLY
ASSAY
OF
RHIZOME
AND
ROOT
(1928
AND
1929).
Stock
Assay,
Assay,
no.
Age.
Month.
Year.
root.
rhizome.
36
6
May
1928
3.22
4.14
37
6
June
1928
2.13
3.15
39
6
August
1928
2.16
3.57
38
6
September
1928
2.15
3.36
Comp.
6
October
1928
2.68
3.51
46
6
November
1928
3.38
3.94
48
6
December
1928
3.08
4.20
53
6
February
1929
2.54
4.21
52-54
6
March
1929
2.75
4.16
55
6
April
1929
3.20
4.21
56
6
May
1929
2.88
4.29
58
6
June
1929
3.00
4.02
60
6
July
1929
2.53
3.73
Comp.
6
September
1929
2.26
3.26
Comp.
6
October
1929
2.75
3.50
77
6
November
1929
2.90
3.90
Maximum
3.38
4.29
Average.
2.73
3.82
Minimum
2.13
3.15
THE
ALKALOIDAL
(ETHER-SOLUBLE)
CONTENT
OF
HYDRASTIS
(RHIZOME
AND
ROOT),
FROM
PLANTS
VARYING
FROM
2-14
YEARS
FOR
1927,
1928,
1929.
It
is
difficult
to
obtain
representative
samples
for
an
assay
by
grinding
up
the
whole
root
system.
The
proportion
of
rhizome
or
root
may
vary,
depending
upon
the
method
used
in
collecting
the
sample,
as
can
be
seen
by
referring
to
Tables
II
and
III.
March
1931
AMERICAN
PHARMACEUTICAL
ASSOCIATION
221
A
more
satisfactory
method
is
to
carefully
divide
the
root
system
into
root
and
rhizome.
Weigh
and
assay
these
separately,
and
from
the
results
obtained
compute
the
alkaloidal
content
of
the
drug
as
marketed.
The
results
recorded
in
Tables
VI
and
VII
were
so
obtained.
TABLE
VI.-ALKALOIDAL
CONTENT
OF
THE
PLANT
(RHIZOME
AND
ROOT).
Stock
Month.
U.
S.
P.
method,
no.
A
g
e.
Year.
%
alkaloids.
33
2
September
1928
2.22
l
3
September
1927
3.27
5
3
September
1927
2.73
35
3
September
1928
2.38
32
3
September
1928
2.57
6
4
September
1927
3.00
31
4
September
1928
2.22
2
5
September
1927
2.91
30
5
September
1928
2.52
53
6
February
1929
2.94
52
6
March
1929
2.95
54
6
March
1929
3.30
55
6
April
1929
3.33
56
6
May
1929
3.19
36
6
May
1928
3.45
37
6
June
1928
2.43
58
6
June
1929
3.26
60
6
July
1929
2.79
39
6
August
1928
2.47
4
6
September
1927
3.00
3
6
September
1927
3.12
22
6
September
1927
2.71
28
6
September
1928
2.41
29
6
September
1928
2.69
66
6
September
1929
2.60
67
6
September
1929
2.45
70AB
6
September
1929
2.93
65N
6
September
1929
2.38
65J
6
September
1929
2.28
6510
6
September
1929
2.56
65AB
6
September
1929
2.48
65CE
6
September
1929
2.46
65G1-1
6
September
1929
2.51
65DF
6
September
1929
3.00
65LM
6
September
1929
2.42
40
6
October
1928
2.60
41
6
October
1928
2.53
42
6
October
1928
2.63
72AD
6
October
1929
2.85
72GB
6
October
1929
3.11
46
6
November
1928
2.80
48
6
December
1928
3.31
7
12
September
1927
3.08
27
13
September
1928
2.65
68
14
September
1929
2.44
Maximum
alkaloidal
content
of
plant
3.45
Average
alkaloidal
content
of
plant
2.82
Minimum
alkaloidal
content
of
plant
2.22
222
JOURNAL
OF
THE
Vol.
XX,
No.
3
As
an
experiment,
the
method
of
representing
the
quantities
in
the
chart
was
changed
from
the
conventional
curve
to
a
block
system
as
illustrated
by
Charts
6
and
7.
THE
ABSOLUTE
ALKALOIDAL
(ETHER-SOLUBLE)
CONTENT
OF
HYDRASTIS
(RHIZOME
AND
ROOT)
.
Two
factors
that
influence
the
alkaloidal
content
of
Hydrastis
are
the
acid-
insoluble
ash
(sand
and
the
like)
and
the
moisture
content.
Both
were
determined
and
the
"absolute"
alkaloidal
content
of
the
samples
in
Table
VIII
was
computed
and
recorded
in
Table
VII
(Chart
7).
TABLE
VII.-THE
ABSOLUTE
ALKALOIDAL
(ETHER-SOLUBLE)
CONTENT
OF
HYDRASTIS
(RHIZOME
AND
ROOT).
Stock
no.
Age.
Month.
Year.
%
alkaloids.
33
2
September
1928
2.37
1
3
September
1928
3.41
5
3
September
1927
2.89
35
3
September
1928
2.61
32
3
September
1928
2.85
6
4
September
1927
3.13
31
4
September
1928
2.34
2
5
September
1927
3.06
30
5
September
1928
2.77
53
6
February
1929
3.14
52
6
March
1929
3.19
54
6
March
1929
3.64
55
6
April
1929
3.73
56
6
May
1929
3.57
36
6
May
1929
3.65
37
6
June
1928
2.69
58
6
June
1929
3.59
60
6
July
1929
3.01
39
6
August
1928
2.79
4
6
September
1927
3.19
3
6
September
1927
3.32
22
6
September
1927
2.85
28
6
September
1928
2.71
29
6
September
1928
2.95
66
6
September
1929
3.13
67
6
September
1929
2.71
70A3
6
September
1929
3.29
65N
6
September
1929
2.69
65J
6
September
1929
2.51
6510
6
September
1929
2.79
65AB
6
September
1929
2.73
65CE
6
September
1929
2.79
65GA.
6
September
1929
2.73
65DE
6
September
1929
3.20
651.311
6
September
1929
2.65
40
6
October
1928
2.90
41
6
October
1928
2.81
42
6
October
1928
2.95
72AD
6
October
1929
3.21
7203
6
October
1929
3.45
March
1931
AMERICAN
PHARMACEUTICAL
ASSOCIATION
223
Stock
no.
Age.
Month.
Year.
%
alkaloids.
73
6
October
1929
77
6
November
1929
46
6
November
1928
3.10
48
6
December
1928
3.52
7
6
September
1927
3.27
27
6
September
1928
2.92
68
6
September
1929
2.69
Maximum
3.73
Average
3.01
Minimum
2.34
T
yi
l
Y
*i°
,!7,-W._
_f
Aqi
17
.13
Chart
7.-The
absolute
alkaloidal
(ether-soluble)
content
of
hydrastis
(rhizome
and
root).
Rhizome,
Maximum
3.73%
Average
3.01%
Minimum
2.34%
TABLE
VIII.-A
COMPARISON
OF
UNITED
STATES
PHAR
MACOMIAL
AND
ABSOLUTE
ASSAYS
(TABLES
VI
AND
VII
COMBINED).
Stock
no.
Age.
Month.
Year.
U.
S.
P.
assay,
Absolu
te
assay.
33
2
S
e
pt
em
b
er
1928
2.22
2.37
1
3
September
1927
3.27
3.41
5
3
September
1927
2.73
2.89
35
3
September
1928
2.38
2.61
32
3
September
1928
2.57
2.85
6
4
September
1927
3.00
3.13
31
4
September
1928
2.22
2.34
2
5
September
1927
2.91
3.06
30
5
September
1928
2.52
2.77
53
6
February
1929
2.94
3.14
52
6
March
1929
2.95
3.19
54
6
March
1929
3.30
3.68
55
6
April
1929
3.33
3.73
224
JOURNAL
OF
THE
Vol.
XX,
No.
3
Table
VIII.--Concluded.
Stock
U.
S.
P.
Absolute
no.
Age.
Month.
Year.
assay.
assay.
56
6
May
1929
3.19
3.57
36
6
May
1928
3.45
3.65
37
6
June
1928
2.43
2.69
58
6
June
1929
3.26
3.59
60
6
July
1929
2.79
3.01
39
6
August
1928
2.47
2.79
4
6
September
1927
3.00
3.19
3
6
September
1927
3.12
3.32
22
6
September
1927
2.71
2.85
28
6
September
1928
2.41
2.71
29
6
September
1928
2.69
2.95
66
6
September
1929
2.60
3.12
67
6
September
1929
2.45
2.71
70AB
6
September
1929
2.93
3.29
65N
6
September
1929
2.38
2.69
65JK
6
September
1929
2.28
2.51
6510
6
September
1929
2.56
2.79
65AB
6
September
1929
2.48
2.73
65CE
6
September
1929
2.46
2.79
65G1-1
6
September
1929
2.51
2.73
65DF
6
September
1929
3.00
3.20
65LM
6
September
1929
2.42
2.65
40
6
October
1928
2.60 2.90
41
6
October
1928
2.53
2.81
42
6
October
1928
2.63
2.95
72AD
6
October
1929
2.85
3.21
72CB
6
October
1929
3.11
3.45
73
6
October
1929
77
6
October
1929
46
6
November
1928
2.80
3.10
48
6
December
1928
3.31
3.52
7
12
September
1927
3.08
3.27
27
13
September
1928
2.65
2.92
68
14
September
1929
2.44
2.69
Maximum
3.45
3.73
Average
2.82
3.01
Minimum
2.22
2.34
(To
be
continued)
A
PHYTOCHEMICAL
AND
PHARMACOLOGICAL
STUDY
OF
MITCHELLA
REPENS
(LINNE),
N.
F.
V.*
BY
W.
PAUL
BRIGGS.
**
The
experimental
research
here
reported
was
undertaken
with
the
intention
of
determining
the
active
constituents,
if
any,
contained
in
the
drug,
Miteltella
repens,
Linne.
*
From
the
laboratory
of
Glenn
L.
Jenkins,
Professor
of
Pharmaceutical
Chemistry,
University
of
Maryland,
School
of
Pharmacy.
**
Associate
Professor
of
Pharmacy,
The
George
Washington
University,
School
of
Pharmacy.